Since my children have already heard all of it, this is a detour of self-indulgent thought sharing. Call it a rabbit trail post, as I continue the discussion started here.
One of the things that rankles me about the discussions concerning the newly resurgent “race problem” in the U.S. is the intellectual dishonesty found on both sides of the issue. I am not so foolish as to think that with my brown skin and black American heritage, I can offer an unbiased opinion. This topic is a charged one and no matter what anyone says about it, someone is going to decide that the thoughts of the person offering them are tainted. I know I often do.
However, as much as I understand the value of knowing who we are, where we came from, and what it means to our children, I am far more invested in Christ’s Eternal Kingdom than I am in anything that happens in this country. More than that, I am convinced that the person who puts his trust in princes or the systems of men is foolish, no matter how smart he sounds. I don’t expect that person to hear me either. If it isn’t apparent to anyone who claims to be a Christian that this entire world lies under the sway of the evil one, any argument about it would be vain.
Nevertheless, a fair and true historical exposition of how we got where we are in this country is in order. Few seem able or willing to hear anything but good about themselves and bad things about “the others”. Christianity in America is already stuck somewhere between a shambles and a joke, so the last thing we need to do is to jump on the ethnic/nationalist bandwagon and forget that we are ambassadors for another kingdom, that this one is not our home. To that end, I figured it’s a good idea to put all of the ideas of the people hell bent on a war under the light of scrutiny. I’ll start with the white nationalist side today, but I have just as many rebuttals to offer to the other side, so save any assumptions.
I have heard a common argument parroted again and again and again and again and…well you get the point. I’ve heard it a lot, and it’s this: that minorities (that is, non-Asian minorities) simply refuse to allow good white folk to live peaceable and separate from the rest of us riff raff. That basically, left to their own devices, people naturally segregate and the only reason this natural phenomena isn’t allowed to play out is because, just like feminists insist on invading male spaces, blacks (and other NAMs) insist on invading white spaces.
Again, I submit that history, recent and of course not so recent, bear out that it is not blacks and other NAMs who are “guilty” of this incursion. It is as it has always been in America, that money and the desire for power is at the root of the diversity in this country, whether the diversity of happenstance or the diversity imposed by legal fiat. I want to get back to that quote from Frederick Douglass that I ended the last post in this series with, because it really does say it all:
“What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!”
We all know that this is not what happened, but if the negro had been “left alone” in the first place, there would have been no need for anyone to try and figure out what to do with him when he was loosed from his chains. In other words, this whole thing -at least where black Americans are concerned- started with money grubbing Westerners (aided by greedy, traitorous Africans) invading African space and bringing black people into their “white space” by force.
I know that plenty of people assume any mention of slavery is an attempt to invoke white guilt, but that’s not my point. I don’t expect my neighbors up and down the street to feel an ounce of guilt or obligation to me for something their ancestors did. It’s probably more accurate to assume that for most of them, their ancestors weren’t even here yet to be able to own slaves. Also (historical note), there were plenty of white Southerners who were far too poor to own slaves, many of whom were sharecroppers right alongside the newly freed black slaves. Consider that my obligatory disclaimer against attempts to invoke white guilt. None of that however, changes my original assertion: it wasn’t black people invading white spaces that started all of this.
In every decade between the Emancipation and the Civil Rights Act, under great stress and hardship, black people did relatively well on all indices related to the kind of foundation needed to build a strong, functional community. Thomas Sowell has done an excellent job laying all of these facts out. Rather than rehash what has already been done and done well, I’ll simply offer an overview, and include detailed links later. Thomas Sowell is all about the facts, not laced with heavy bits of opinionated and emotional feel good rhetoric, to his credit:
The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.
Government social programs such as the War on Poverty were considered a way to reduce urban riots. Such programs increased sharply during the 1960s. So did urban riots. Later, during the Reagan administration, which was denounced for not promoting social programs, there were far fewer urban riots.
Neither the media nor most of our educational institutions question the assumptions behind the War on Poverty. Even conservatives often attribute much of the progress that has been made by lower-income people to these programs.
For example, the usually insightful quarterly magazine City Journal says in its current issue: “Beginning in the mid-sixties, the condition of most black Americans improved markedly.”
That is completely false and misleading.
The economic rise of blacks began decades earlier, before any of the legislation and policies that are credited with producing that rise. The continuation of the rise of blacks out of poverty did not — repeat, did not — accelerate during the 1960s.
The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.
In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 — that is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater in the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years afterwards.
While some good things did come out of the 1960s, as out of many other decades, so did major social disasters that continue to plague us today. Many of those disasters began quite clearly during the 1960s.
But what are mere facts compared to a heady vision?
This “heady vision” Sowell mentions is again, another instance of do-gooder liberal whites (or seditious Jewish cultural revolutionaries depending on who you ask) meddling with “the others”, not the other way around. Whether it was racists harassing my grandmother and grandfather-in-law for daring to buy 100 acres of land far out in the country away from neighbors of any color, or welfare promoters incentivizing fatherless families, or affirmative action champions attempting to level the playing fields which Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and the prolific Zora Neale Hurston urged against, it was usually others stoking the fires of entitlement and discontent among people who initially wanted the opportunity to achieve or not on the merits of their ability.
Like anyone else (see the women of 2017), when you get used to being handed freebies, coddled, and pushed to the front of the line long enough, your behaviors and expectations evolve accordingly. People believing they are owed a debt that can never be repaid will make trouble.
This is equally true, albeit to a lesser degree, when referring to other NAMs and immigrants. White liberals and media pundits constantly tell these people that the rule of law does not apply to them, that they -non citizens!- have Constitutional protections, and that anyone who dares to suggest they be held to the same legal standards as the rest of us are racists.
The sad part, as The Practical Conservative pointed out in this thread, is that black liberals have foolishly allowed communists and gangsters to act as their political operatives then blame white people for their lack of progress. The bad politics, bad behavior and politically opportunistic conflation engaged in by so-called black leaders is probably the major source of the problem. That is, if you believe blacks should be politically agitating at all in 2017, which I do not.
This is long, so we’ll have to continue it next week.